PHI1101 (Reasoning and Critical Thinking)

Vincent Bergeron

CHAPTER 9 (A BUCKETFUL OF FALACIES)

A fallacy is a pattern of reasoning that should not convince anyone but which
many people nevertheless find convincing.

Against the person (ad hominem) In the ad hominemfallacy, the person putting
forth an argument, rather than the argument or claim itself, is attacked.

Jones says that there’s too much violence in hockey. That’s garbage—
he’s just a wimp who’s afraid of getting hurt.

Tu quoque (you too!) The tu quoque ad hominem seeks to deflect attention from
the misdeeds of a given person or group by pointing out that others (most often
the accusers or a group they belong to) are guilty of the same transgressions.

Canada should mind its own business, and take a look at the way
it treats its own indigenous people before passing judgement.

Guilt by association Another variant of the ad hominem, the guilt by association

fallacy attempts to discredit an argument or claim by linking it to some
undesirable group or other.

Richard Dawkins is an unapologetic atheist. That’s interesting—so

were Stalin and the other Soviet communists who murdered millions
upon millions of people. He’s a smart man; he should know
by now what atheism is all about.

Appeal to force (Ad baculum) The appeal to force is a favourite of tyrants

and also of many would-be tyrants, along with certain middle-managers. It
tells us that we should accept something or else. . . .

You can write that in your column if you like. But if you do, I’ll
fire you, and make sure you never work for any other newspaper
in this country. Perhaps you’d like to reconsider your opinion?

1
Appeal to pity (Ad misericordiam) Just because we feel sorry for someone
does notmean itwould be reasonable to believewhat he says. But such appeals
to pity often convince people.

She’s just lost her job and has been evicted from her apartment.
How dare you say she’s not telling the truth?

Appeal to popular opinion/bandwagon appeal (Ad populum) Many people

try hard to fit in, and the ad populum fallacy exploits this by asking us to accept
a claim because lots of other people do.

Obviously, everyone wants taxes lowered and no cuts to public

spending, so obviously it’s the right thing to do. Don’t you agree?

Complex question The complex question is another debater’s trick, much

favoured in Parliament. It consists in asking a question which seems to demand
a yes or no answer, when either answer will saddle the responder with
an unpleasant admission.

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?

When will the Minister stop lying to Canadians and admit that his
department has failed miserably under his leadership?

Appeal to ignorance (Ad ignorantiam) The fallacy called appeal to ignorance points out
that we have no compelling proof that some claim is false and asks us to therefore accept it as true.

We have no proof that claim C is false. Therefore it’s true.

But, the lack of disproof is not a proof. And the lack of proof is not disproof.

Of course 9/11was an inside job. Nobody has proved that it wasn’t.

Post hoc (Short for post hoc, ergo proper hoc) This happened before that, so this
caused that.

My child had an earache, so I went to the doctor, who prescribed

antibiotics. Within days, the earache had cleared up thanks to the
antibiotics.

2
 In 1990, Madonna scored a big hit with “Justify my love.” The next
year, the Soviet Union was dissolved. Coincidence? I think not.

Hasty generalization The fallacy called hasty generalization consists in leaping to a strong,
general conclusion after only a small number of data have come in.

The last three winters have been relatively mild, so this year I’m pretty sure it will be mild as well.

Gambler’s fallacy Closely related to the hasty generalization, this fallacy is

so-called in honour of the eternally hopeful gamblers who think that because
they have had a string of bad luck, things are sure to turn around on the next
throw of the dice, spin of the wheel, etc.

The Leafs failed to win the Stanley Cup yet again. It’s been decades
since the last time they won. Their luck is due to turn. They’re sure
to win this year.

Slippery Slope An argument commits the fallacy of slippery slope when it falsely claims that
if A happens, so will B, and then C, D, . . . , and finally Z, where Z is usually an
obviously unacceptable consequence. Since we don’t want Z, it continues, we
should at all costs avoid A.

If marijuana is made legal, then how are we going to be able to say

that other “soft” drugs should be illegal? But once we have made
enough soft drugs legal, there will be no good reason to ban harder
drugs like cocaine. In the end, you’ll see, heroin will have to be
made legal as well, and before you know it schoolchildren will be
shooting up during recess.

False dichotomy In this fallacy, we are presented with a list of alternatives

(most commonly two) that is supposed to be exhaustive but isn’t.

You’re either with us or with the terrorists.

3
Begging the Question (petitio principii) An argument begs the question when
it uses a premise that is either equivalent to or stronger than the conclusion it
is supposed to support. (NOTE: ‘begs the question’ is also used to mean ‘raises the following question’)

A: I’m sure you’ll make a profit on this transaction.

B: That isn’t at all obvious to me. How do you know?

A: Well, let me tell you. You’ll have to pay some expenses (including
my fee), I admit that. But you’ll also get some income, right?
And, see, the income will be a lot more than the expenses.

Fallacy of composition This fallacy is committed when we infer that a whole

has (or lacks) a certain property or characteristic because each of its parts does.

All the players on the team are very talented. So the team is certain
to be good.

Fallacy of division This fallacy goes in the opposite direction, inferring that
a part of some whole has (or lacks) a characteristic because the whole does.

The government is very unpopular, and Witherspoon is in the cabinet,

so she must be unpopular.

Equivocation In the fallacy of equivocation, the same expression is used in

different senses in the course of an argument, when the validity of the reasoning
depends upon it being used in the same sense throughout.

Tigers are cats.

Cats make nice pets.
-----------------------------
So Tigers make nice pets.

4
Faulty appeal to authority (ad verecundiam) Appealing to the authority of an expert
about something he or she is not an expert in.

Linus Pauling won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry and then the Nobel
Peace prize. He’s obviously a genius of the first order. And he
said that taking massive doses of Vitamin C is the key to a longer
and healthier life. So it’s clear that we should all be taking Vitamin
C every day.

Straw man The fallacy called straw man occurs in the context of responding to someone
else’s argument; it consists in putting words into someone else’s mouth, words
which are easier to refute than what the person actually said.

X thinks we should increase welfare payments. Obviously, he thinks

the role of the state is to take away all sense of personal responsibility.

Y thinks that the price of gasoline should be much higher than it

is. Clearly his goal is to reduce the hard-working people of this
country to poverty and misery.

Exercises (p. 153) Spot the fallacy: Most but not all of the following passages contain arguments,
and many of these commit one or more of the fallacies discussed above. Identify fallacies where they occur.

2. We can either re-introduce the death penalty for murder, or else turn our
society over to the criminals. No one wants to live in a society dominated
by fear. So it’s clear that re-introducing the death penalty is the right
thing to do.

3. Ever since the Liberals came to power in Ontario, there has been an increase
in all forms of immoral behaviour. It’s pretty clear that the Liberal
party’s policies are causing a breakdown of our most cherished values.

6. No one has ever proved conclusively that a second gunman wasn’t involved
in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Clearly, the official US
government report on the Kennedy assassination,which claimed that Lee
Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, was a cover-up.

9. Theft is wrong, because stealing is immoral.

11. We can only deal with the problem of terrorism by negotiation or by war.

5
But there is no way to negotiate with terrorists. So war is our only option.

13. The government should bring back capital punishment for serious crimes
like murder. After all, polls consistently show that the majority of Canadians
favour the death penalty.

14. Laws restricting the genetic engineering of plants should not be passed.
After all, nobody knows of any evidence that genetic engineering poses
a threat to human well-being or the environment.

20. Often, when a sports team wins (or loses) a championship, there are riots
in the city where the team is based. So it is a good idea for there to be
extra police on duty in cities whose teams might win on the days when
the championship might be decided.

23. Of course Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Has anyone
ever proved that he didn’t? He must have moved them to Syria just
before the War.

27. If we don’t stop admitting so many refugees into Canada soon, the consequences
will be disastrous. Word is already spreading throughout the
world that Canada is an easy country to get into. This will lead to a flood
of refugees. Soon there will be so many that we won’t be able to afford
public services such as medicare. And when they send for their families
and friends, yet another flood will come, and we will all be swamped.
Soon English and French will be minority languages in this country.

31. Being in favour of legal abortion basically boils down to saying it’s OK to
kill anyone who is small enough. Clearly, abortion in any form would be
illegal.